There has been a significant movement toward developing and performing cardiac and other surgeries using a percutaneous approach. Through the use of one or more catheters that are introduced through, for example, the femoral artery, tools and devices can be delivered to a desired area in the cardiovascular system to perform any number of complicated procedures that normally otherwise require an invasive surgical procedure. Such approaches greatly reduce the trauma endured by the patient and can significantly reduce recovery periods. The percutaneous approach is particularly attractive as an alternative to performing open-heart surgery.
Valve replacement surgery provides one example of an area where percutaneous solutions are being developed. A number of diseases result in a thickening, and subsequent immobility or reduced mobility, of valve leaflets. Valve immobility leads to a narrowing, or stenosis, of the passageway through the valve. The increased resistance to blood flow that a stenosed valve presents eventually leads to heart failure and death.
Treating severe valve stenosis or regurgitation has heretofore involved complete removal of the existing native valve followed by the implantation of a prosthetic valve. Naturally, this is a heavily invasive procedure and inflicts great trauma on the body leading usually to great discomfort and considerable recovery time. It is also a sophisticated procedure that requires great expertise and talent to perform.
Historically, such valve replacement surgery has been performed using traditional open-heart surgery where the chest is opened, the heart stopped, the patient placed on cardiopulmonary bypass, the native valve excised and the replacement valve attached. A proposed percutaneous valve replacement alternative method is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,168,614 (the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference) issued to Andersen et al. In this patent, the prosthetic valve is collapsed to a size that fits within a catheter. The catheter is then inserted into the patient's vasculature and moved so as to position the collapsed valve at the location of the native valve. A deployment mechanism is activated that expands the replacement valve against the walls of the body lumen. The expansion force pushes the leaflets of the existing native valve against the lumen wall thus essentially “excising” the native valve for all intents and purposes. The expanded structure, which includes a stent configured to have a valve shape with valve leaflet supports, is then released from the catheter and begins to take on the function of the native valve. As a result, a full valve replacement has been achieved but at a significantly reduced physical impact to the patient.
However, this approach has decided shortcomings. One particular drawback with the percutaneous approach disclosed in the Andersen '614 patent is the difficulty in preventing leakage around the perimeter of the new valve after implantation. As the tissue of the native valve remains within the lumen, there is a strong likelihood that the commissural junctions and fusion points of the valve tissue (as pushed against the lumen wall) will make sealing of the prosthetic valve around the interface between the lumen and the prosthetic valve difficult.
Other drawbacks of the Andersen '614 approach pertain to its reliance on stents as support scaffolding for the prosthetic valve. First, stents can create emboli when they expand. Second, stents are typically not effective at trapping the emboli they dislodge, either during or after deployment. Third, stents do not typically conform to the features of the native lumen in which they are placed, making a prosthetic valve housed within a stent subject to paravalvular leakage. Fourth, stents can be hard to center within a lumen.
As to the first drawback, stents usually fall into one of two categories: self-expanding stents and expandable stents. Self-expanding stents are compressed when loaded into a catheter and expand to their original, non-compressed size when released from the catheter. Balloon expandable stents are loaded into a catheter in a compressed but relaxed state. A balloon is placed within the stent. Upon deployment, the catheter is retracted and the balloon inflated, thereby expanding the stent to a desired size. Both of these stent types exhibit significant force upon expansion. The force is usually strong enough to crack or pop thrombosis, thereby causing pieces of atherosclerotic plaque to dislodge and become emboli. If the stent is being implanted to treat a stenosed vessel, a certain degree of such expansion is desirable. However, if the stent is merely being implanted to displace native valves, less force may be desirable to reduce the chance of creating emboli.
As to the second drawback, if emboli are created, expanded stents usually have members that are too spaced apart to be effective to trap any dislodged material. Often, secondary precautions must be taken including the use of nets and irrigation ports.
The third drawback is due to the relative inflexibility of stents. Stents rely on the elastic nature of the native vessel to conform around the stent. Stents used to open a restricted vessel do not require a seal between the vessel and the stent. However, when using a stent to displace native valves and house a prosthetic valve, a seal between the stent and the vessel is necessary to prevent paravalvular leakage. Due to the non-conforming nature of stents, this seal is hard to achieve, especially when displacing stenosed valve leaflets.
The fourth drawback is that stents can be hard to center within a lumen. Stenosed valves can have very irregular shapes. When placing a stent within an irregularly shaped, calcified valve, the delivery catheter can become misaligned causing the stent to be delivered to an off-center location, such as between two calcified valve leaflets. Expanding the stent in such a location can result in poor seating against the lumen walls and significant paravalvular leakage or a non-functioning prosthetic valve.